Community Voting starts on March 1st, and will continue for 2 weeks, ending March 15th (inclusive).

The form factor this year is slightly changed.

As usual, voters will be given a pool of 50 points to hand out to their most favorite games, 0 to 5 points.

New twitch is, voters will be able to write a short sentence/feedback about the game they are giving points to. This will be kept at minimum, twitter-length, but benefits both the game maker (getting feedback) and also the voter (giving feedback).Giving feedback is optional, so those lazy-horses out there, no need to worry about a dreadful form to fill out

voters will be able to write a short sentence/feedback about the game they are giving points to

Any reason that we cant give feed back on any submission? or is my understanding not correct? I gave a few entries 0 score... but that can only be achieved by leaving the score field blank... so how do you determine between a 0 score and a non-score?

voters will be able to write a short sentence/feedback about the game they are giving points to

Any reason that we cant give feed back on any submission? or is my understanding not correct? I gave a few entries 0 score... but that can only be achieved by leaving the score field blank... so how do you determine between a 0 score and a non-score?

I did leave feed back for all entries as i tested all entries.

Well, the idea was you give a game some points and optional feedback.If you give a game 0 points and feedback, that will still be saved, but have no weight in the results.

That is fine, i am sure the authors would appreciate any and all feed back... i know i did when I had participated in the past. I was a little bit worried that my multi-hour effort of playing each entry and giving feedback would have been wasted for those which did not get a points ( I ran out of points )

I'm seeing a flaw in the voting system - the games are sorted alphabetically. With a fixed pool of points go distribute, I find it very likely that games starting with numbers or an A will get significantly better scores than games later in the alphabet. I'd suggest doing such a comparison after the contest to see if this is the case. It might even be possible to calculate a curve representing this "multiplier" and normalize the results - perhaps not to use as actual results, but as interesting experiment.

For next year (and probably even for the remainder of the current year's voting), I suggest making the list sorting randomized. The best way to do this would probably be to randomize it once for each user, meaning each logged-in user will see entries in the same order each time they look at the list.

Yeah, I think it is more a moral issue than it is anything else if you just give the first 10 games 5 points and don't check the rest. I think the random thing is a good idea.

I played all the games and did my points depending on what I considered great getting the points in general. I was disappointed that it was only 50 points, I think a lot more games deserved some points... but that is just me .

Yeah, I think it is more a moral issue than it is anything else if you just give the first 10 games 5 points and don't check the rest. I think the random thing is a good idea.

I played all the games and did my points depending on what I considered great getting the points in general. I was disappointed that it was only 50 points, I think a lot more games deserved some points... but that is just me .

Well, the reason for "only" 50 points is a psychological one. You're more likely to spend 50 points than 500 points. There's a whole lot of reasoning behind the scarcity of points.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org